News site t-online.de here writes that visitors to the German Ministry of Environment will be served only vegetarian food, according to German daily Bild.

The order comes from the Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks (Socialist Party) herself. According to reports, food service companies that cater events held at the Ministry are not to provide fish or meat, or products made of meat. The rule has been in effect since February 1st. Also catered food must come from organic farms, be seasonal and locally produced with short transport distances.”

The reason for the new policy? According to the report, the Ministry must act as a “role model” in the fight against the “effects of meat consumption“.

More German climate protection madness in the pipelineHigher taxes on meat and milk products

The dictation of people’s lifestyles does not only end at the Environment Ministry banning meat and fish at its events. but according to topagrar.com here, the Ministry is also calling for higher taxation nationwide on “animal products such as milk and meat“.

German government herding its citizens to eat like cows. Image: USDA

If the German government gets its way, soon a nutritious and balanced diet will become a luxury that only the rich will be able to afford. The poor will be forced to devolve to diets of herbivores, a level down the food chain. In summary: biological devolution seems to be the new direction of progress in Germany and radical environmentalists. Better to become a lowly herbivore than to risk warming the planet by a degree or two.

Humans are to be herded down the food-chain…back millions of years in evolution.

According to UBA president Maria Krautzberger: “Animal food products need to be taxed at the regular 19% VAT rate.” In Germany food is taxed at a 7% VAT rate. With the added revenue, the Ministry says it aims to lower the tax on plant products. “This will protect the climate and will be less a burden on the taxpayer,” she said. According to topagrar.de, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Ministry blames the agricultural industry for being one of the country’s top greenhouse gas emitters. It claims that the production of one kilogram of beef causes between 7 and 28 kilograms of greenhouse gases, whereby 1 kg of fruit or vegetables emits less than a kilogram.

In response, the German association of farming (DBV) sharply criticizes the plans, accusing the Ministry of using misleading figures and focusing in the wrong areas.

DBV president Joachim Rukwied said: “A penalty tax on food will have no positive benefit on climate, but rather will only make the daily purchases made by consumers more expensive.”

Topagrar.de points out that agriculture in fact represents only a small fraction of the total greenhouse gas emissions: 7%, and so the focus is misplaced. Rukwied criticizes:

It is totally incomprehensible how agricultural animal farming can be put in the front row of climate sinners.”

Milk and milk products are among the fundamental food staples of German citizens. Families with small children, and thus having a high milk consumption, and people with low incomes will be forced to pay disproportionately more.”

The National Union of the Food Industry (BVE) has come out against the ecological control taxation on food, saying that it will only serve to “make products more expensive, distort the market and add more bureaucracy“.

Germany can afford to have lunatic politicians because it has industry , an undervalued currency and Grid power to allow it all to exist. Make that power too expensive and industry emigrates.

The migrants will then have no state benefits to live on. This is the recipe for 30 years’ Civil War with many cities reduced to rubble as America and Russia crush the various Salafist derivatives. Think of the 30 years’ war.

So higher taxation is equal to trying to stop someone from doing something? Are governments then trying to stop people earning too much? Or do you have a flat tax scheme where you live?

A strange perception of reality you have. Have you also read that other products will be taxed lower so there is no net change in the amount of taxes from food? And did you know that meat in Germany has already a reduced VAT? Does that mean the government is currently trying to make us meat-only citizens?

I don’t understand what is going on with our policymakers in Western Europe. In our Dutch parlement there is no one with some knowledge to evaluate issues like climate, energy policy. You can expect crap like this, does she knows the difference between a herbivore and omnivore??
I really start to have my doubts.

We are not in Germany but there are lots of things available here now that would have to be cut. Some folks like coffee and tea — gone. Oranges, dates, cashews — gone. Bananas — gone. If seasonality is required there are many things that would be available for only 3 or 4 weeks each year. Children in some places would grow up not knowing what an Orange is.
The fact is, we live in cattle country so the “short transport distance” is easy to do. Sea food would have to go, although a few times each year the Salmon come home and they can be caught and stored via several methods.
A total requirement such as this would remake the world economy and push many people into destitution.

Madness. does no one understand the carbon cycle.
Grass and vegetation convert CO2 into starches and sugars, these then get eaten by bacteria insects or animals, if animals dont eat it, they rot (bacteria) and the result is the same that CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

The carbon cycle will continue as it will, it was a very sensible comment.

The cycles will either contain humans or not. It doesn’t make any difference to how much carbon is in the atmosphere. That is the whole rationale behind Drax burning wood pellets from American trees (I hope Trump puts a rapid end to that particular piece of farce)

I assume seb would prefer that the carbon cycle didn’t contain humans….. except himself, of course.

Thank goodness we are bringing buried carbon back into that cycle to strengthen it, hey 🙂

Too bad you don’t have the intelligence to understand any of this, seb… no expectations from you, that is for sure.

Have you found that missing paper to support your baseless religion yet, seb ???

Do you still believe that 1.8 W m-2 of the alleged total radiative forcing from atmospheric CO2 concentration variations since 1750 is enough to dominate as the cause of net heat content changes in the global oceans? What physical/observational evidence do you have that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration changes are a dominant cause of ocean heat variations? Or do just believe it’s true without needing physical measurements/scientific verification?

Why do you think it is that the Pacific Ocean is still -0.65 C colder in the 0-700 m layer than it was 1,000 years ago with all that, you know, human forcing?

…ocean heat content (0-700) remained flat until about the late-1980s, when it began rising (if one can find an actual trend in there with uncertainty ranges an order of magnitude greater than any assumed trend).

The global radiative forcing value in surface solar radiation (SSR) attributed to the shortwave cloud effect (decreasing cloud cover = more solar heat absorbed by the ocean) for the 1980s to 2000s period is about 3 to 6 W m-2 according to dozens of scientific papers using satellite data (which I have cited previously).

According to Feldman et al. (2015), the radiative forcing attributed to CO2 variations between 2000 and 2010 is 0.2 W m-2 — though the authors do not include ocean heat content in their analysis. According to a more recent paper, Song et al. (2016), the GHE radiative forcing for +30 ppm CO2 was effectively zero for 1992-2014:

So, since the late-1980s, natural forcing from the decrease in cloud cover alone can explain any and all ocean warming trend (3 – 6 W m-2), which would completely overwhelm any assumed changes in OHC attributed to the CO2 greenhouse effect for that period (0 to 0.3 W m-2). This assumes, of course, that the models are correct that presume ocean heat content is significantly affected by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2, even though this presumption has never been observed to occur in the real world.

So why do you believe, SebastianH, that 0 to 0.3 W m-2 of presumed forcing from CO2 since the late 1980s or early 1990s is greater than the forcing of 3 to 6 W m-2 attributed to observations of reduced cloud cover/SSR over the same period? Or do you just plan to ignore the SSR forcing values because they don’t collaborate your belief that CO2 variations drive changes in ocean heat content?

He meant that gravity begins at the surface of where it begins from. Once it starts at the beginning, it continues to the end. And then, you know, the greenhouse effect. It’s simple physics, simplified by the laws. And stuff.

So, since the late-1980s, natural forcing from the decrease in cloud cover alone can explain any and all ocean warming trend (3 – 6 W m-2), which would completely overwhelm any assumed changes in OHC attributed to the CO2 greenhouse effect for that period (0 to 0.3 W m-2). This assumes, of course, that the models are correct that presume ocean heat content is significantly affected by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2, even though this presumption has never been observed to occur in the real world.

So why do you believe, SebastianH, that 0 to 0.3 W m-2 of presumed forcing from CO2 since the late 1980s or early 1990s is greater than the forcing of 3 to 6 W m-2 attributed to observations of reduced cloud cover/SSR over the same period? Or do you just plan to ignore the SSR forcing values because they don’t collaborate your belief that CO2 variations drive changes in ocean heat content?

Kenneth, you already linked a paper that claimed that total cloud cover forcing is about – 21 W/m² (blocked sunlight minus additional LW radiation from the clouds to the surface). So the blocked sunlight decreased by 3 to 6 W/m², what is the resulting change in total cloud cover forcing?

Do you have a graph of the total cloud cover change since the 80s? By how much did it actually change since the 80s? The most recent I could find says the cloud cover percentage was the same in 2009 and 1983. So did it change by 1%? 2%? 3%? What’s 1% of -21 W/m²? 0.21 W/m² … and there you have your total change of the forcing by the change in cloud cover.

“Kenneth, you already linked a paper that claimed that total cloud cover forcing is about – 21 W/m² (blocked sunlight minus additional LW radiation from the clouds to the surface). So the blocked sunlight decreased by 3 to 6 W/m², what is the resulting change in total cloud cover forcing?”

Apparently you missed the part where I explained to you (and apparently the first time you’ve ever read it, if you did) that the – 21 W/m² is the absolute value for net cloud forcing, calculated from subtracting/adding the shortwave and longwave components together. The 3 to 6 W m-2 is the net relative change in forcing calculated from satellite observations of global-scale cloud cover. We do not substract one from the other, just as we do not subtract the 1 to 5 W m-2 of (relative, net) TSI forcing since the Maunder minimum from the 300-500 W m-2 (absolute) daylight forcing, or the amount of energy that is absorbed by the Earth’s oceans on an average sunny day. Do you understand the difference yet? You obviously didn’t before. Do you now?

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/brt18.pdf
“Clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation by 48 W m−2 (Cs = −48Wm−2) while enhancing the greenhouse effect by 30 W m−2 (Cl = 30Wm−2), and therefore clouds cool the global surface–atmosphere system by 18 W m−2 (C = −18 W m−2) on average. The mean value of C is several times the 4 W m−2 heating expected from doubling of CO2 and thus Earth would probably be substantially warmer without clouds.”

Here’s an explanation of the relative forcing from cloud cover reductions:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htmThe reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present].

SebastianH: “Kenneth, so you want me to believe that the net cloud forcing is -21 W/m² and that number changed by 5.4 W/m² by what kind of reduction of the cloud cover? Did we really lose a quarter of the cloud cover?“

SebastianH: “If you cite something that says clouds cause a net forcing of -21 W/m² and then cite something that says the decrease in cloud cover is responsible for a forcing of 5.4 W/m², then I assume that net cloud forcing was -26.4 W/m² in the past.”

How did you arrive at your conclusion that we “lost a quarter of the cloud cover” if you didn’t wrongly compare the -21 W m-2 and the 5.4 m-2 to one another? You obviously have no understanding of what the -21 W m-2 (or -18 W m-2) represents, despite my explaining it to you twice. It’s hopeless. You don’t even want to understand it, let alone answer the question.

The relative forcing value for clouds since the 1980s is 3 to 6 W m-2 (according to many dozen scientific papers). The relative forcing values for CO2 since the 1980s is 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 (Feldman et al., 2015, Sing et al., 2016). These are the values found in the scientific literature. Without trying to figure out what -21 W m-2 means (since you obviously won’t or can’t — and I never even mentioned the absolute forcing value in my question above), answer the question: Which of these two forcing values is larger – the forcing values for clouds, or the forcing values for CO2?

See if you can answer this question without trying to veer off in another direction like you usually do.

I apologize (again) for assuming (without checking) that you were being quoted correctly. When quotation marks are used, I assume it’s a direct quote.

Kenneth, I think you are mixing numbers up now. You are digging up what I wrote in another thread where you didn’t understand what I was writing about (trying to make it clear to you that whatever “relative” forcing you assume cloud cover has is not the total forcing of the cloud cover). Why would CO2 forcing be relative? The surface has to lose the exact amount of W/m² in order to reach a steady state condition. It doesn’t have to compensate 3-6 W/m² of the cloud cover change you assume.

It may very well be that English not being my primary language creates some missunderstanding here. It feels the same when arguing with you about magnitudes. You either intentionally missunderstand or you really do not understand, I can’t tell.

AndyG55, did you even read what the grown ups are discussing here? btw: you graph shows “net longwave flux”, not downwelling …

SebastianH, I understand you would like to make the 3 to 6 W m-2 of net cloud forcing since the 1980s go away. That’s why you originally wrote that you “bet” it’s actually 0 W m-2 — despite not having any scientific paper to support your “bet”.

Why do you “bet” cloud forcing isn’t actually 3 to 6 W m-2 for the 1980s to 2000s, but 0 W m-2 instead? Because that way you can claim that the 0.0 to 0.3 of CO2 (modeled) forcing effect on the ocean heat content is greater — even though CO2 variations have never been observed, or measured, to have affected ocean heat content, let alone stand as the dominant cause of OHC variations. So, to distract from this subversion of the narrative you espouse that says nearly all natural factors influencing climate suddenly stopped varying and remained constant after the year 1950…or 1970, or whatever year you have cherry-picked, allowing CO2 to take over from natural forcing, you have once again ignored the forcing values found in the scientific literature, and instead veered off (again) to discuss what you believe the -21 W m-2 of cloud forcing actually means, or how it turns into -26 W m-2 sometimes, or how it is reduced by 1/4th… Whatever you can do to avoid answering the direct question, the better off you apparently think your position is. You’re losing the debate, SebastianH, because you refuse to answer this highly relevant and fundamental question:

The relative forcing value for clouds since the 1980s is 3 to 6 W m-2 (according to many dozen scientific papers). The relative forcing values for CO2 since the 1980s is 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 (Feldman et al., 2015, Sing et al., 2016). These are the values found in the scientific literature. Which of these two forcing values is larger – the forcing values for clouds (3 to 6 W m-2), or the forcing values for CO2 (0.0 to 0.3 W m-2)?

I’ll put it another way. I believe that 3 to 6 W m-2 is greater than 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2. Do you believe that 3 to 6 is greater than 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 too? Or do you think 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 is greater than 3 to 6 W m-2?

why do you think CO2 forcing is relative? Is something working against this forcing? If less cloud cover causes additional 3-6 W/m² on the surface, but reduced downwelling longwave radiation (because less clouds) is in the area of 2.8-5.6 W/m² … then this results in a net forcing change of 0.2-0.4 W/m². Roughly the same amount as CO2 forcing is supposed to have changed.

I get what you want the numbers to say, but those 3-6 W/m² are NOT comparable to your 0-0.3 W/m² number. As you can see on the downwelling radiation graph linked to above, cloud cover decrease in downwelling radiation might as well have been compensated by the increase in CO2 caused radation.

Sorry, SebastianH, you can’t just make scientific papers go away because you don’t like what the satellite observations say, or you can’t just say cloud forcing is “0.2-0.4 W/m²” because you don’t like the 3 to 6 W m-2 values for clouds.
—http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year
—http://nml.yonsei.ac.kr/front/bbs/paper/rad/RAD_2005-3_Wild_et_al.pdf
A similar reversal to brightening in the 1990s has been found on a global scale in a recent study that estimates surface solar radiation from satellite data. This indicates that the surface measurements may indeed pick up a largescale signal. The changes in both satellite derived and measured surface insolation data are also in line with changes in global cloudiness provided by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which show an increase until the late 1980s and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from the late 1980s to 2002. A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe. The overall change observed at the BSRN sites, estimated as an average of the slopes at the sites in Fig. 2A, is 0.66 W m-2 per year (6.6 W m-2 over the entire BSRN period).
—ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.
—http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425716304655
Trends of all-sky downward surface solar radiation (SSR) from satellite-derived data over Europe (1983–2010) are first presented. The results show a widespread (i.e., non-local dimension) increase in the major part of Europe, especially since the mid-1990s in the central and northern areas and in springtime. There is a mean increase of SSR of at least 2 W m− 2 per decade from 1983 to 2010 over the whole Europe, which, taking into account that the satellite-derived product lacks of aerosol variations, can be mostly related to a decrease in the cloud radiative effects over Europe. … Downward surface solar radiation (SSR) is a critical part of the Global Energy Balance and the climate system … A widespread decrease of SSR from the 1950s to the 1980s [when global cooling occurred] has been observed (Liepert, 2002; Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Wild, 2009), followed by an increase of SSR since the mid-1980s [when global warming occurred]… Pinker et al. (2005) used a different product (2.5° resolution) and found that the derived global mean SSR series underwent a significant increase of 1.6 W m−2 per decade from 1983 to 2001. … On the other hand, Hatzianastassiou et al. (2005) derived a SSR product from 1984 to 2000 (2.5° resolution) and reported a significant increase of +2.4 W m−2 per decade in the global mean series, which is considerably higher than the results from Pinker et al. (2005) and Hinkelman et al. (2009).
—http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kaicun_Wang/publication/224138562_Review_on_Estimation_of_Land_Surface_Radiation_and_Energy_Budgets_From_Ground_Measurement_Remote_Sensing_and_Model_Simulations/links/0912f50962ddc826c7000000.pdf
Global “brightening” and “dimming” has great implications for climate change and hydrological cycles. In the IPCC-AR4, continental- and global-scale surface temperatures are shown to decrease slightly from the 1950s to the 1970s, but drastically increase since the 1980s, with strongest temperature rises on northern continents. This kind of behavior matches the similar patterns of the decadal variations of insolation.
—

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2011]
—ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.

Sorry, SebastianH, you can’t just make scientific papers go away because you don’t like what the satellite observations say, or you can’t just say cloud forcing is “0.2-0.4 W/m²” because you don’t like the 3 to 6 W m-2 values for clouds.

I am not “making papers go away”, but you are obviously confused about the meaning of those numbers, despite your claim that you know what absolute and relative forcings are (or rather just forcings and net forcings).

I am not saying the cloud cover forcing wasn’t 3-6 W/m². I am saying the NET forcing was most certainly not that high and comparable in magnitude to the CO2 net forcing you suggested.

I don’t know why you keep insisting on that 3-6 W/m² number as it should be obvious that such an increase in the short wave radiation spectrum without a corresponding decrease in the longwave spectrum would significantly alter the climate on this planet in a short period of time. We would have noticed it …

“I am not saying the cloud cover forcing wasn’t 3-6 W/m². I am saying the NET forcing was most certainly not that high and comparable in magnitude to the CO2 net forcing you suggested.”

Please provide scientific support for your claims that the net forcing for clouds was “most certainly” 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2. Since you are certain you are right, and the scientists who reported the satellite-observed values for clouds (3 – 6 W m-2) are wrong, surely you can provide an abundance of scientific evidence showing that your own 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 values are actually the correct ones. Show us the scientific papers, SebastianH.

“I don’t know why you keep insisting on that 3-6 W/m² number as it should be obvious that such an increase in the short wave radiation spectrum without a corresponding decrease in the longwave spectrum would significantly alter the climate on this planet in a short period of time.”

How do you know that there weren’t other factors contributing to net changes in radiative balance besides clouds and CO2? That’s the recurring problem, SebastianH. You seem to want to believe the climate system is either/or, all or nothing, black and white. It’s not.

Come on Kenneth, I did the calculation for you, explained it multiple times and yet you still insist those two numbers are describing the same thing?

3-6 W/m² is – according to you – the increase in short wave radation. This includes changes in TSI, cloud cover and aerosols. Correct?

It’s NOT the change in net forcing. Since you insist on some magic sky high forcing by cloud cover change, I showed you that a 1% change in cloud cover (you haven’t presented any numbers by what percentage cloud cover actually changed … I did and you ignored it) would also most likely result in a 1% change in net forcing of the cloud cover, wouldn’t you agree? And the net forcing of the cloud cover is – according to you – some value around -21 W/m². So what is 1% of -21 W/m²?

If you still don’t understand, than I can’t help you. You don’t need scientific papers to confirm simple math, do you? It the same with your claim that somehow radiative energy transfers work differently with sea water surfaces. I’d like to see a scientific paper from you that oceans behave against established physics laws.

No, SebastianH. Your calculations are meaningless, as you have little to no understanding of SSR. Just a few days ago you insisted that SSR was only aerosols and TSI, and didn’t include cloud. I had to teach you about SSR by showing you what the IPCC says (SSR is not TSI, and clouds are also included in SSR, not just aerosols). Obviously this was the first time you have ever read most of the things I have presented to you regarding SSR.

You are now trying to say that 3 to 6 W m-2 for cloud forcing since the ’80s is actually 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 when you do your “calculation.” I’m not interested in your calculation. I’m interested to see if you can actually support your beliefs that cloud forcing since the ’80s is 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 with a scientific paper that says that very thing. I’m not going to take your word for it, as you have demonstrated you have so little understanding of SSR, and because you have been caught numerous times just making up stuff. You are not a trustworthy purveyor of scientific “truth.”

Provide a paper that supports your claim that cloud forcing has been 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 since the ’80s. You’re the one who has made that claim. Back it up.

“3-6 W/m² is – according to you – the increase in short wave radation. This includes changes in TSI, cloud cover and aerosols. Correct?”

No. TSI is the change in the Sun’s radiation itself, its output. SSR is the solar radiation absorbed by the surface that is modified by changes in albedo. That you don’t even understand the difference between these two — and yet you think you have the standing to toss around your little “you don’t understand simple maths” hubris is excruciatingly off-putting. You don’t get it, SebastianH. That’s why people like Andy get so exasperated…and resort to name-calling. You pretend you know more than we do about a subject, and then, in reality, you display your beginnerdom.

http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
I’ve provided this link multiple times before, mostly because it simplifies what is being talked about here. It would be a good idea for you to read the entire paper, SebastianH, as it could aid your understanding of what is meant by cloud forcing. Instead of making up your own values, address the values presented in scientific papers. Or produce a scientific paper of your own that supports your beliefs.

Questions for the know it all veges. What happens to the animal explosion if we stop slaughter of cows, chickens, pigs,ox? How do you propose to reduce the production of methane? (worse than CO2). As the number of animals rise so the quantity of grass and hay reduces until they start dying of starvation.

Question for you: do you think those animal populations would grow endlessly if we stopped eating them? Those are bred just for the purpose of being our food … you are not eating meat from free running animals that had to be killed because of population control …

Seb don’t show arrogance by not not answering my questions and just change to some other aspect and respond with a question. One thing is certain, all those animals will continue to breed until overpopulated and they die UNLESS we somehow segregate ALL males from ALL females.Answer my questions if you are able please.

Has is occured to you that you never answer questions? Instead you ignore them and/or hide behind insults and Trumpisms. Sometimes we get honored by a question as an answer …

That’s what trolls do. I don’t care what you do … it’s a waste of time do debate with you, since you drag everyone down to your level and win by greater experience. Grow up (mentally and courtesy-wise) …

Most likely … but do you think a cow in our highly industrialized production world becomes a lovely 5€ per kg lump of meat by itself? They don’t just feed themselves off a lovely meadow and then walk to the slaughterhouse when they are ready. It’s an industry!